Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greater emphasis needs to be made to objectives in the game rather than emulating a pretend shoot out with our plastic army men.

You can't gain objectives if all your models are removed.

Martel732 wrote:
You can't gain objectives if all your models are removed.

Give more emphasis on objectives & playing board game to a point where you're at a severe disadvantage if you choose to focus on killing instead of capturing objectives starting from top of turn 1.

Why not class all miniatures as having moved at the start of the first turn? It effects some weapons, doesn't effect others and it wouldn't stack with moving again as the first suggestion would.

It's fluffy as well, armies must have moved to meet at the battlefield, or in the case of a defending force they still have to muster and organise to meet the enemy.

The biggest problem is just that many armies start inside their engagement range. There is no maneuvering or skirmishing. Just sit tight and blast em from turn 1. 7th ed also had this problem, but it felt less obnoxious because of cover.

Cover is also just less important than previous editions. Because all I need to shoot literally every gun at you is to my pinky toe to see your tailpipe. Its much more difficult for LOS blocking. Especially with knights who are decently tall and can see over terrain. Getting shot with a Volcano cannon because a castellan can see you with his carapace shell is annoying. Especially when hte only part it can see is your pinky toe

I feel like one potential fix would be more defensive stratagems. There are tons of "shoot twice" or "fight twice" or "+1 to hit and/or wound" stratagems, but very few on the opposite end of that. Things like a "unit gains the benefit of cover until end of phase" or "vehicle with smoke may immediately use its smoke launchers if it has not already done so" would be kind of nice.

skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You can't gain objectives if all your models are removed.

Give more emphasis on objectives & playing board game to a point where you're at a severe disadvantage if you choose to focus on killing instead of capturing objectives starting from top of turn 1.

That is currently impossible with the victory condition that you automatically win if your opponents army is wiped out.

What they should do is just make it like kill teams mechanics (roll of a 1 is a fail, roll of a 6 is a pass) that way, cover could be what it was meant to be (-1 to hit rolls) without it completely destroying the shooting for armies.

So even if something had a -10+ modifier, it can still hit the target on a 6. Plasma would just be what the kill team one says it is (unmodified rolls of 1 cook you)

Simple

 Galef wrote:

So what to you do when you get placed on a table with a big open plain with virtually no LOS blocking terrain and face off against a gunline?

1) Try & set up so that at least some of their stuff is simply out of range.
2) Hope you go first.
3) Hope your opponent rolls misses/1s & then more 1s on any re-rolls.
4) Hope you make your saves.
5) Do vehicles block LoS in this edition? Do destroyed vehicles that don't explode provide cover (full or partial)? If so sacrifice some & provide your own shelter.
6) Suck it up.
7) Then go sob to the powers-that-be that you can't handle an IgoUgo form of game & demand that whatever offended you this week gets nerfed.

ccs wrote:

 Galef wrote:

So what to you do when you get placed on a table with a big open plain with virtually no LOS blocking terrain and face off against a gunline?

1) Try & set up so that at least some of their stuff is simply out of range.
2) Hope you go first.
3) Hope your opponent rolls misses/1s & then more 1s on any re-rolls.
4) Hope you make your saves.
5) Do vehicles block LoS in this edition? Do destroyed vehicles that don't explode provide cover (full or partial)? If so sacrifice some & provide your own shelter.
6) Suck it up.
7) Then go sob to the powers-that-be that you can't handle an IgoUgo form of game & demand that whatever offended you this week gets nerfed.

Oh boy how constructive.

I don't think the 'proposed rules' section is for you champ.

Also if you don't even know the rules this edition (point 5) you shouldn't really be commenting on their relative efficacy.

Then I propose a rule where you use 6 large pieces of Line of Sight blocking terrain in matched play games, and save the suicide runs across open fields for narative play

 adamsouza wrote:
If you are losing a majority of your army turn 1 to shooting there is not enough Line of Sight blocking terrain on the board.

Apart from mentioned issue with windows etc another is many armies can simply outright ignore LOS or are shooty AND mobile enough they can move enough to get that LOS anyway. Or the LOS blocking is so big of a headache you won't do anything on your turn anyway as YOU can't get anywhere either.

tneva82 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
If you are losing a majority of your army turn 1 to shooting there is not enough Line of Sight blocking terrain on the board.

Apart from mentioned issue with windows etc another is many armies can simply outright ignore LOS or are shooty AND mobile enough they can move enough to get that LOS anyway. Or the LOS blocking is so big of a headache you won't do anything on your turn anyway as YOU can't get anywhere either.

Welcome to Imperial guard artillery, where LOS doesn't matter and the wounds keep stacking

mchammadad wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
If you are losing a majority of your army turn 1 to shooting there is not enough Line of Sight blocking terrain on the board.

Apart from mentioned issue with windows etc another is many armies can simply outright ignore LOS or are shooty AND mobile enough they can move enough to get that LOS anyway. Or the LOS blocking is so big of a headache you won't do anything on your turn anyway as YOU can't get anywhere either.

Welcome to Imperial guard artillery, where LOS doesn't matter and the wounds keep stacking

Mortars?
Because the real artillery pieces are only rarely used.
It also dosen't help that most transports armies can field are in 8th ed not particulary good.

 adamsouza wrote:
If you run across an open field while people are shooting at you, you are going to get shot.

This is accurately depicted in Warhammer 40K.

It's a much simpler solution to add some LOS blocking terrain to the table than rebalance melee and shooting effectiveness to account for poor strategy.

No, it's not accurately depicted in WH40K, and we both know why. The LoS rules in the 8th edition are extremely imbalanced, especially when you consider that nowadays most off-the-shelf models are made in poses that make them take up maximal amount of space around them. I mean poses like you see with modern harlequin infantry, imperial assasins etc. although many other armies suffer from this too.

But to the point; it's not in anyway accurate depiction of conditions of gunfight between two armies that you can shoot with your infantry units through your own other infantry units at the enemy behind them, that you can shoot through the window in the ruins some 200 meters away at someone's swordtip and hit everyone in the unit(unless you're Vindicare assasin or some other ungodly sniper, then it would be thematically ok), or that you can shoot at someone behind the hill in front of you just because their hair-do/finger/banner is sticking out above the said hill. In other words, 8th edition LoS rules make it extremely hard to hide your units behind anything, making almost all battles de facto fought in plains, where the gunline can just blast away at it's leisure, rarely even having to move an inch.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
People keep lauding "Alternating Action" as if it would fix all the problems. Alternating Action has problems just as bad as IGOUGO, just different ones.

It really doesn't. Alternating activations may not be a perfect system, but its problems are far less severe than IGOUGO (at least in a 40k-scale game) and typically exaggerated by people who don't have any experience with alternating activation games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
People keep lauding "Alternating Action" as if it would fix all the problems. Alternating Action has problems just as bad as IGOUGO, just different ones.

It really doesn't. Alternating activations may not be a perfect system, but its problems are far less severe than IGOUGO (at least in a 40k-scale game) and typically exaggerated by people who don't have any experience with alternating activation games.

Alt Act would only be good if both sides had same amount of units to activate.

People who say "I can see the fin on your guy through this pin hole, so I'm gonna fire these 4 lascanons at it" are the worst.

I'll tell you how we play.

Buildings block line of sight regardless of windows
Units inside can shoot out regardless of wall or windows
Units inside can be shot regardless of windows or walls
(granted another building isn't blocking Los or something else)

Is it perfect probably not, but this has made the game easier for all parties playing.

 skchsan wrote:
Alt Act would only be good if both sides had same amount of units to activate.

This is one of those misconceptions I was referring to. Alternating activation works fine with different numbers of units, and in fact most alternating activation games have different numbers of units. In a well-designed system there ends up being a tradeoff between MSU and death stars. An MSU list has superior flexibility in timing its activations (via activating less-important units to stall before committing the key ones), a list with fewer but more powerful units is able to activate a large amount of power at once to take advantage of an opportunity (such as killing an enemy unit before it can fire). And of course a mixed list has some of the advantages of each, often leading to pressure away from either extreme. Unit count just becomes part of the game's strategy.